[laughinghan]

Are there publicly known instances of something like this being "too good to be true", or is your feeling based only on private experience?

I have had no private experience with something like this being "too good to be true", and multiple instances of it being all too true. And there is obviously a publicly known instance of something like this that appears quite credible (the Susan Fowler blogpost). So you understand why I'd feel the opposite way---that in spite of the lack of substantiation, this feels all too true.

[Tycho]

Here is one example

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/28/alt-ri...

I could tell it was fake because it hit on so many tropes of the left.

Here's a more directly comparable example (incredibly long winded expose... skimming recommended)

https://contraspin.co.nz/the-weaponising-of-social-pt1-the-c...

It's not about the events, it's about how they are framed and told by the anonymous author.

[laughinghan]

I'm confused. Are you saying that Guardian article is a hoax? In what way is that a publicly known fact? I did not see any retraction or correction on the link provided.

The Contraspin article is pretty fascinating and from skimming it, makes a decent case worth taking seriously, but one good case isn't a consensus; in fact, it appears to run directly contrary to the consensus. (It also has plenty of weak spots; for example, someone who's been Executive Director of the EFF for 15 years has a lot of credibility in my eyes.) By contrast, Sarah Fowler's article has been corroborated by reputable sources like the New York Times [1], who've found additional horror stories along similar lines. (To be clear, I'm operating under the assumption we're in agreement that all indications are that Sarah Fowler's story is fundamentally accurate.)

Do you have any examples where it's a thorough consensus that an anonymous testimonial was made up to hurt someone, the way, for example, there's a thorough consensus that the Rolling Stone UVA article was pretty much made up?

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/technology/uber-workplace...

[Tycho]

Someone called Godfrey Elfwick claimed to have written the Guardian article as a spoof, although on closer investigation it seems there's no solid proof. That said, it reads like perfect satire, I can't believe it's genuine.

I recall a few similar instances over the years but I can't find links to all of them. Not sure if I can find an exact fit for an anonymous story made up to smear someone. The accusations of child-rape against Trump just before the election spring to mind:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump...

More generally on fake accounts, there was the fake Syrian lesbian blogger:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13760208

There was the fake deaf cerebral palsy blogger:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/dave-on-wheels

There was this "meeting a troll" story from years ago which I always suspected was fake - looked it up just now, and while there's no hard evidence that it is fake, the writer (who made no claims to using a pseudonym), has since vanished from the face of the web, and it seems no journalists ever fact checked the story:

http://paulclarke.com/honestlyreal/2012/10/for-whom-the-bell...

My google search turned up this article from Breitbart which is actually pretty good, a rundown of fake stories that became national news over the years:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/22/12-fake-n...

Their comment on the infamous Stephen Glass I think gets to the heart of how fake articles get written:

Some speculated Glass fooled so many editors because he had “wonder boy” star power and great personal charisma. Others thought it was because he understood and flattered the biases and expectations of the publications he worked for – he sold them stories they wanted to publish, surfing the early wave of “narrative” obsession that has completely consumed mainstream journalism over the past two decades. Glass invented people, organizations, and events that lived down to his publishers’ darkest expectations of every social group and profession except their own.